Summary of conclusion
6.Having considered the matter in the light of the helpful submissions from each party, and noting that there is now a broad consensus as to the way forward, as a matter of law, I have concluded that an application for a declaration as to the validity of existing placement orders or adoption orders is neither appropriate nor required. The outstanding FPR 2010, Part 18 applications for a declaration made by SCC will be dismissed. There is no basis for other local authorities or adoption agencies to issue similar applications with respect to breaches of the medical requirements of AAR 2005 that may have been discovered in cases where placement orders or adoption orders have been made. Where, on the facts of any particular case, a party to the original proceedings is concerned that a breach of the AAR 2005 may go to the validity of a placement order or an adoption order, then the route to challenge that order is by application for permission to appeal out of time. It is, however, difficult to contemplate a case where a health issue is so significant that it may lead to a successful appeal, yet where that issue was not fully known to the court (notwithstanding any breach of the medical requirements of AAR 2005).7.The reasoning that supports that conclusion now follows.
- Approved Judgment
- Introduction
- Summary of conclusion
- The Legal Context
- “Requirement to obtain information about the child
- MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CHILD'S HEALTH REPORT
- “21 Placement orders
- Dismissal of FPR 2010, Part 18 applications
- The validity of a placement order or an adoption order
- [2015] AC 1787
- Are existing placement or adoption orders vulnerable to challenge?
- On what basis may a placement order be set aside or revoked?
- [2008] EWCA 835
- I have reached the conclusion that the Recorder was wrong for the simple reason that
- Re P-B
- accurately states the law
- On what basis may an adoption order be set aside or revoked?
- “Is it open to this court in 2009 to set aside the adoption orders?
- simply make it impossible for this court to set aside the adoption orders even if, as Mr and Mrs Webster argue, they have suffered a serious injustice
- FPR 2010, Part 18
- Conclusion
- What needs to happen now?
